humans are humans, and therefore ontologically equal. If you eat animal products, then you affirm human ontological superiority to certain species. If morals are a creation of the human mind, then how exactly do you propose to apply them to an omnipotent, omniscient Being?
morals are objective. Two people may have different subjective opinions about morality, but they both reference an objective moral code that originated in the Mind of God.
well, bear in mind I didnt ask you for proof, just evidence. So do you now reject your earlier statement?
Again with your hyperbolic claims of murder. Still waiting for you to support that.
Yes, sin has consequences. Good thing for us that God is merciful in addition to being just.
well, thats not exactly accurate, God is merciful and willing to forgive, He even went to great lengths to make this possible, so it’s not exactly accurate to say that sin will send you straight to hell. And I wonder how your mention of society is relevant. God is now responsible to you for things that other people do? How is that, exactly?
apparently you are not qualified to write about Christianity. Or should I say that the audience would do well to regard your claims with skepticism.
Well you claimed earlier that all morals originate with God. So are we not just applying his morals to him?
What was my earlier statement? I thought that I said I don’t believe in eternal torture for punishment; but I think you were refering to the idiot statement. Well how do you propose I provide evidence. All I can think of is telling you that I don’t believe in God.
How is this hyperbolic. I provided numerous examples of Gods murder to support my claim. The Bible and Koran make it clear; if you sin you will be sent to murdered and/or sent to Hell.
How is God mercifull or just? Did you not read the few examples I gave of his bizarre murders. Someone is sent to Hell for not believing in him - something for which there is no evidence. But this is assuming a Christian God. Allah sends everyone to hell, but the ‘‘good’’ people are eventually released and allowed into Heaven.
No, no, no, no!
Well if own own a dog am I not responsible if it savages a farmers cow?
I don’t like to interpret the koran and then decree that my interpretation is correct; the koran is far to ambiguous and inarticulate for that. But basically, you cannot reconcile a theocratic central power with libertarianism.
Where in the Quran does it call for a central power?
you are attempting to claim that acts which are prohibited for humans are also prohibited for God. How so? God prohibits humans from killing other humans except in certain circumstances, most of which explicitly apply to the Old Testament nation of Israel. Your claim that this moral injunction should apply to the Divine needs to be supported. Elsewise you make an ontological error which would be equivalent to claiming that cows eating grass is murder. The grass has the same rights as the cow!
you are entitled to your opinion, but as long as we are discussing this opinion, I would like to see some support.
if we want to be rigorous, you literally expressed a lack of belief. So do you believe it is “wrong” to torture someone for all eternity? Or do you not have any belief on the subject because you do not have any evidence to believe anything? Your other posts on this subject would suggest that you do have a belief here.
“murder” and “killing” are not synonymous. As for your interpretation of the Bible, it is totally incorrect. If that were true then everyone would be condemned to hell because all humans are sinful. The Bible is clear on the fact that God is merciful and forgiving, and those who ask for forgiveness with a sincere heart may receive it.
all of these scriptures are just as accessible as the ones where God had smote some human being.
if there is no evidence that God exists then what evidence justifies your claims that He sent people to hell? furthermore, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of a living, personal God, but as we know from rational inquiry, all evidence is subject to interpretation. You claim there is “no evidence,” a philosopher/scientist would only go so far as to claim that he had not been exposed to any evidence. Your belief that there is no evidence is an article of faith and happens to bias your interpretation of any such evidence. Witness your emotional reaction to a book that you appear to think is not true. Why do atheists get mad when they read about God killing people? That is asinine. As for your question, God is just because He defines “justice.” the concept of justice requires reference to a moral standard. You think this moral standard has no existence outside human minds, yet somehow this standard is universally applied to a Being that is by definition, infinitely smarter than you. God is merciful because He extends mercy to some humans.
your emotive reactions blind you to truth.
you are responsible to God, you are responsible to the farmer, you are not responsible to the dog, or the grass. God is ontologically supreme and is not responsible to you for anything.
I said you dont know what youre talking about and people should not trust you on this subject.
There’s a difference between what is and what should be. There is literally no basis at all for any Christians affirming blasphemy laws. As for your other points, I see you’ve made egregious use of various OT passages. Again, what makes you think they have applicability now? They don’t. That was the entire point of Christ’s work, namely to redeem use from the law. That you don’t know this is no surprise, despite the fact that it’s utterly basic theology. Moreover, there is no requirement to ‘follow’ the entirety of the Bible in order to be a Christian–there are such essential doctrines that one must affirm and certain actions that one engage or refrain from, and beyond that there is great room for individuality. It’s easy to find Christians who aren’t model examples of Christ and who don’t even commit to the basics, but that has no bearing on the truth of Christianity. All it says is something about their own character. Antony Flew’s ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy applies only where there is no pre-existing metric. This worked in Flew’s case, since there is no standard for ‘being a Scot’. Again, like virtually all informal fallacies, its application is limited.
For your last point: That definition is revisionist. It’s semantic tomfoolery. That has never been the traditional definition of faith, ever. That dichotomy between faith and reason simply doesn’t stand, the recent atheist introduction notwithstanding.
“Where in the Quran does it call for a central power?”
Nowhere. But Sunnah or Hadith are also important books to Islam. Which is the prophet’s words regarding the ideal lifestyle and state.
All of this stuff is pretty non-controversial. In fact, the view that Islam has nothing to do with a state is what is controversial. Even if some muslims are not as statist as others. What you are saying would probably get you beheaded in many countries.
“Where in the Quran does it call for a central power?”
Nowhere. But Sunnah or Hadith are also important books to Islam. Which is the prophet’s words regarding the ideal lifestyle and state.
All of this stuff is pretty non-controversial. In fact, the view that Islam has nothing to do with a state is what is controversial. Even if some muslims are not as statist as others. What you are saying would probably get you beheaded in many countries.
I know Quran-only muslims who say that Islam and the Quran are extremely anarchistic and libertarian AND free market. They say that Muhammed was way more libertarian then Jesus and other religious figures.
who else would I follow? You see, God is divine, and man is mortal, the only way to have communion with God is through someone who is both God and man.
That doesn’t even make sense. First, you don’t define what ‘extravagant’ means, and secondly, libertarianism is not libertinism (not that wearing gold is outlandish, or anything). One can be a consistent libertarian and believe that it is morally wrong to wear gold, so long as the arm of the state is not involved in preventing such an act. Perhaps the Koran says the law ought to be involved in these matters, but your argument failed to demonstrate that.
Ok dude, wherever muslims go, they try to set up sharia law. Sometimes they use the existing state apparatus, sometimes they set up their own state. But look at afghanistan, who, as a nation, is basically as anarchist as somalia. For thousands of years, they have resisted a central government, and what happened when they got rid of the western imperialist state in the 80s? The taliban moved in and set up a state. And, make no mistake, they mean to judge you by their interpretation of islam, not yours.
Christianity was spread by word of mouth, islam was spread by military conquest, i.e. The state. The non-aggression principle is contained in the golden rule, i.e. “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” these kinds of ethics are essential to an anarchist society, whereas in practical terms muslims believe they can stick together and cheat unbelievers (this is a cultural observation, aka “stereotype”). There are plenty of secularized muslims who are not suicide bombers or supporters of terrorism, just like there are plenty of so-called Christians who drink and drive, or cheat on their wives. But Christianity doesnt foster military aggression or a police state like islam. The crusades, however flawed they may have been, were defensive wars.
As a former muslim (and strong atheist), I would say that Islam has a lot more libertarian qualities then Christianity in regards to ethics and economics. At the same time, it’s a religion, so expect it to contradict itself in these regards.
As a former muslim (and strong atheist), I would say that Islam has a lot more libertarian qualities then Christianity in regards to ethics and economics.
You obviously know less than nothing about the life of muhammed, the history of the middle east, or islam in general. I suggest you do some research because youre either a troll or laboring under some serious misapprehensions. “most” muslims are BORN into islamic families and live in theocracies where questioning their belief system is met with extreme social disapproval*, physical assault and outlawry*, or mob execution. When “infidels” are tolerated, they are treated as second-class citizens by, you guessed it, the theocratic state. Do I really need to find links to this or can you manage to google islam before you turn into a full-fledged mujahideen?
Edited to add, ok, we are talking about converts. I just woke up. You still seem ignorant of the muslim conquest of the middle east and africa. Islam is spread by violence even today, if I feel generous I will look p some links for you later.
*I am hedging my bets here. i know for a fact that in a strict sense, islam does not permit the apostate to live. I do not know how often this is enforced and in which countries.